PDA

View Full Version : Francis Ford Coppola: Youth Without Youth (2007)--ROME



Chris Knipp
11-04-2007, 04:16 AM
Francis Ford Coppola: Youth Without Youth (2007)

A great director lost in Romania

This meandering recreation of a novella by Miorcea Eliade (famous as the author of The Myth of the Eternal Return),largely set and shot in Eliade's native Romania, is Coppola's first movie in over ten years. Its satisfyingly lush mise-en-scene and sweeping scope show the hand of a master, who's used the relatively economical facilities of Eastern Europe to remarkable effect. But the hand falters and the effort is misguided. Youth Without Youth is a pointless farrago of time travel and creaky science whose vaguely tendentious arc is puzzling, to say the least, and wholly uninvolving.

Don't take my word for it--it's been a while since I read that influential book by Eliade in college and I probably didn't really understand it all that well at the time--but the author, who's linked with Jung and taught at the University of Chicago, was keen on hierophany, a word for the manifestation of the sacred in the profane (i.e., the everyday world). He thought that was what myths were all about: they exist to describe the never-ending cyclical breakthroughs of the sacred into the world in the form of events he called hierophanies. Eliade was one of those thinkers, like Karl Jung and Joseph Campbell, who found a way to make sense of all the world's stories. (He also had a troubling sympathy for extreme right wing politics; but that probably need not concern us here and didn't seem to have influenced Coppola.)

Youth Without Youth is the tale of a seventy-year-old man, Professor Dominic Matei (Tim Roth), a brilliant but funbling professor in Romania in 1938 who's still grieving over a broken engagement with his lost love Laura (the protean Romanian actress Alexandra Maria Lara) forty years before and despairs of ever completing his lifelong project, a book of ridiculously overreaching ambition (rather like Mr. Casaubon's "Key to All Mythologies" in George Eliot's Middlemarch) that aims to trace all the ultimate origin of the world's languages back to a single ulitmate ur tongue (a somewhat dubious concept to begin with). Reviewers of the new film suggest--and Coppola may himself have confirmed this--that the director identifies with Matei's frustration due to the forever-delayed completion of his "Megalopolis£ project. And here is where Eliade's fantasy comes in: Matei's struck with a bolt of lightening that ought to have fried him down into a puddle of dark goo; but instead he quickly revives in hospital as a much younger man who, somehow or other--don't ask me--can bond anew with Laura and through her (because she seems to have become a medium time-traveling back to Sanscrit, then Babylonian and who knows what) to the origin of tongues.

But wait a minute. Is this the provocative, off-kilter Tim Roth who blended so well into Quentin Tarantino's feistier moments in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction? Do we really feel comfortable watching him earnestly seeking the most primitive of all tongues? Roth has proven himself as versatile as Ms.Lara, but somehow he lacks the gravitas or the good looks for this job.

Anyway, Professor Stanciulescu (Bruno Ganz), the supervising physician, wants to observe Matei's miraculous revival, but a Nazi doctor starts sneaking in to steal him away, using a sexy undercover agent known only as the "Woman in Room 6" (Alexandra Pirici). Things get hokier and hokier, as a Doppelganger Matei pops in representing his more rational, scientific side, and Matt Damon helps him change identities and slip away from the bad guys. Fast (but not very fast) forward to 1955 and Matei finds a young woman who exactly resembles his lost Laura. She's hiding in a cave after a car crash and speaking only Sanscrit.

This is like a series of "Twilight Zone" episodes cut together without proper transitions. Two hours isn't a terribly, terribly long time for a movie to run but it can seem pretty dragged out when things get this dicey, and it didn't help to have to stop right in the middle of all this and stare into space for a while during the traditional Italian "Intervallo". In the end the story of a Faustian search for the world's secrets and for eternal youth just sort of dribbles away into a finale that lacks finality--or even closing credits.

Seen in the Metropolitan Cinema on the Via del Corso in Rome, October 30, 2007. It was moved here from the recent Rome Film Festival, as was Roy Andersson's You the Living. Unlike the latter, it was being shown with the original soundtrack, but considering the stilted and often dubbed dialogue, that was less of a virtue than it might sound. The most interesting thing about this movie is Coppol's effort to produce grandiose effects using the bargain location of Romania. To some extent, that worked. But this isn't the first instance of Coppola going out on a limb on a project. This time a masterpiece most definitely was not the result. The conventional cinematography is attractive, but the occasional use of upside-down shots is pointless, and the music isn't very interesting.

oscar jubis
11-04-2007, 10:58 PM
Its satisfyingly lush mise-en-scène and sweeping scope show the hand of a master, who's used the relatively economical facilities of Eastern Europe to remarkable effect. (CK)

Reason enough for me to check it out despite seemingly weighty reservations.

Chris Knipp
11-05-2007, 02:58 AM
Oh yes, definitely. It is fun to see Coppola painting with a Romanian brush. You may also find the themes more interesting than I do--some will. I wrote "one of the most pointless farragos I've seen" in my diary though and Variety said "mishmash plotting and stilted script" but no doubt some people will find the themes unusual and fascinating.

I see there were some font problems that I've corrected--I'm on another foreign computer. . .

Johann
11-05-2007, 10:06 AM
Praise the spheres that you post reviews, Chris.
This year you've outdone yourself with the amazing posts, from all over the world. Thanks man.

This film is high on my anticipation factor.

I thought Mr. Coppola was finished with filmmaking for a while there. He's a man who really knows how to make a film, even if his work doesn't always resound in your soul.
He's always had his thumb on art and storytelling.
I posted on him a long time ago about resting on his laurels, but it don't matter- he made cinema history with The Conversation, The Godfather, Apocalypse and Dracula.
(And don't forget writing Patton).

I'd love to meet him someday, maybe visit his vineyards in Napa.
Can a regular person do that?
Can you drop in?
Probably not.
His Merlot is different but just as great as Greg Norman's- I've tried 'em both. Coppola's is more expensive though..



I'm actually very excited to see Youth Without Youth.
A new Coppola film- fuckin' A.

He's now working on Tetro, and producing Walter Salles' film adaptation of Jack Kerouac's On The Road, which I heard he was originally going to direct...

Chris Knipp
11-05-2007, 10:53 AM
Thank you, Johann, it's nice to be appreciated and I'm glad I've been fortunate enough to see all this stuff lately and pass on comments about it. Thanks also for the new info about Coppola's many doings. Back in the Seventies I had friends who were in the wine importing business. One day Francis turned up with a sidekick carrying an attache case full of cash. He bought about $10,000 worth of Vernon and Judith's wine right off the bat. I was with her when he turned up at a North Beach street fair. I was surprised what a short guy he was. He certainly is a man great in ambition and wide in interests.

oscar jubis
02-05-2008, 10:05 AM
Coppola brought the film to Miami for an advanced screening last November, preceded by an interview conducted by the Herald critic. Mr. Rodriguez's one-star review ("colossal miscalculation") wasn't published until the film opened at a single suburban theater last month. It would have been fun to watch Coppola answer questions knowing that the interviewer hated his new baby. It would have been fun under any circumstances actually, with Coppola being a rather provocative, upfront type of person. I couldn't make it to the event so I had to wait a few months to watch it.
For a while, I thought I wouldn't have the chance to do so properly, in a theater. It was effectively killed right after the premiere at the Rome Film Festival by a damning review on Variety. Then it received a very limited release in the US and practically nobody went. I watched it all by myself. I had to alert the theater staff because the projectionist had apparently forgotten to roll the reel.

I knew better than to be deterred by negative reviews. It certainly wasn't "incoherent" as some proclaimed. Perhaps I have a soft spot for this type of valiant, no-net, adventurous filmmaking but I enjoyed the brain-twisting, time-collapsing, itinerant narrative. Perhaps, the critical drubbing is a sign of the times. I wonder if something like say...Godard's Alphaville would encounter the same reception if released today. Not that YWY is Alphaville's equal. Hard to specify precisely what's to blame. Like Hoberman, I believe the film is to a degree a "Faustian romance". A failed one going by my inability to become emotionally involved with it. I understand intellectually that Laura, Matei's supreme love object, abandons him, marries someone else, and dies giving birth a year later. And that decades later she makes a return of sorts. But the heartache and longing barely register. Is the script to blame? Is this aspect of Matei beyond Tim Roth's range? It's open to discussion I'd say, but I'm convinced this is where YWY comes up short.

Otherwise, I find it hard to believe anyone can fail to appreciate the film's visuals, particularly the art direction, cinematography and editing aspects. YWY is the work of a highly skilled filmmaker and one doesn't need to look at his older movies to know that. I hope he gets back on the director's chair soon and often.

Chris Knipp
02-05-2008, 01:30 PM
I was not bucking critics when I went to see the film in Rome. I hadn't read any reviews, though I did read some before I wrote my review and found they corroborated my sense of disappointment. As I said, Coppola has "gone out on a limb" with projects before, and it's been ages since his best work. He's made some unquestionable masterpieces, and many so-so pictures. His proclivity for elaborate productions has found an outlet in Romania, where he is excited to find he can achieve grandiosity at relatively low cost without loss of polish. No question about his capacity to manipulate image and sound. This is a high-quality failure, not a cheesy or sloppily produced one. Maybe your "soft spot" for stories of this kind of--what? "valiant, no-net, adventurous filmmaking" is a vague description--makes you indulgent, but you yourself admit the Alphaville analogy won't hold. In fact it only brings out the weaknesses of Youth Without Youth, because Alphaville is fresh and original and focused and tight. The facts remain: the film is still a meandering bore with an unappealing and dubiously cast lead in Tim Roth and poor dubbing that makes the dialogue fuzzy. As I said, there are grandiose effects, which in themselves are successful, and to that extent Coppola's working in Romania worked well for him. There's hope that maybe future films will click better. We'll see how the director's projected Argentina-based Tetro comes out, though it seems to be ill-starred so far with the script being stolen or destroyed by burglars in Buenos Aires.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i214f0355971497c8d7bdb0df6131c702

oscar jubis
02-05-2008, 02:19 PM
My soft spot is not for "stories of this kind", but filmmaking of this kind ("valiant, no-net, Adventurous").
Otherwise, you used the reply post to restate points in your review yet again rather than respond to the content of my comment. A discussion killer.

Chris Knipp
02-05-2008, 02:47 PM
Yes, of course "filmmaking"--I meant to cut out the word "stories" which was part of an earlier draft of that sentence I wrote. Sorry!

I don't quite see what there is here to discuss. You imply that you are much more sympathetic toward the film than I. Maybe, maybe not. I was really curious and excited to see it, and as mentioned, when I went to the theater, I had heard nothing about it one way or the other.


Like Hoberman, I believe the film is to a degree a "Faustian romance". A failed one going by my inability to become emotionally involved with it. I understand intellectually that Laura, Matei's supreme love object, abandons him, marries someone else, and dies giving birth a year later. And that decades later she makes a return of sorts. But the heartache and longing barely register. Is the script to blame? Is this aspect of Matei beyond Tim Roth's range? It's open to discussion I'd say, but I'm convinced this is where YWY comes up short. Yes, Hoberman's phrase is a good description. I agree that the movie is emotionally unengaging. I don't know what there is to discuss.

I don't know whether you ignored my review or disregarded it, so I repeated some of its content. I would say that the reviews are in general accurate.
Is the script to blame? Is this aspect of Matei beyond Tim Roth's range? It's open to discussion I'd say, but I'm convinced this is where YWY comes up short.That's a "discussion killer" too, because it's not necessary to discuss it. You're obviously right on both counts. The script is to blame, and Roth is miscast. I would 't say necessarily that it's beyond his range but that may be true. He just doesn't have the kind of charisma necessary; but on the other hand, I can't imagine another actor saving the film either.

oscar jubis
02-05-2008, 04:06 PM
If there's something I need to say for the record is that I read everything you write with focused attention. I often read your reviews more than once. I'm not looking for consumer advice, or for the definite take on a film because there isn't such a thing. I'm looking for exactly what I get: Chris Knipp's point-of-view. Even when I don't get the type of highly useful background you provide here (first two paragraphs), what I get is the opinion of Chris Knipp. Something that gets noted and assimilated, never disregarded, regardless of whether we agree or not.

I don't think YWY needs to be "saved". I rather like it, warts and all. I'm speaking generally. I admit that as "a Faustian romance", the film fails. But it works for me as a "Borgesian brain-twister" (another literature-based label by Hoberman). And the visuals were a consistent source of pleasure to me; something I'm afraid won't be appreciated when viewed on dvd. My opinion runs closer to that expressed in the NY Times, Voice, Baltimore Sun,etc. rather than the overly negative, verging-on-vicious reviews in Variety, Miami Herald, Chicago Sun,etc. You however gave Coppola and his YWY a fair trial. That you didn't like it much is besides the point.

By the way, I shoud be posting my list of English-language favorites in a couple of days, after I watch Honeydripper, the latest from Sayles and, I believe, officially a 2007 release.

Chris Knipp
02-05-2008, 05:42 PM
Oscar I didn't mean to imply you intentionally disregarded my review or my views, just thinking since you didn't refer to them, depite my starting this thread, you might have lost sight of them as one does, as the threads flow endlessly by. Thanks for the reassurance nonetheless.

As a "Borgesian brain-twister" does Youth Without Youth succeed? I don't know. My immediate thought is how economical Borges' "brain-twisters" are (just a few succinct pages that leave you pondering them for decades to come), compared to how elaborate the sequences in this movie are.

Somehow or other a film has to grab you and then it may work. I think you are certainly right in saying that if this one succeeds, it is as visual spectacle. I may have given this one a fair shake--I try to give everything a fair shake--but that doesn't mean it worked for me. Visual spendour is better for creating mood and conveying a sense of style rather than as a delivery system for Borgesian brain-twists.

I saw Honeydripper and enjoyed its musical sequences, which were all too few. The dialogue segments seemed not very interesting to me, but a musical doesn't need much of a set of concepts so long as the music is great. Too much talk and not enough music,, I thought. I wasn't left with a strong after-effect (as I was with Matewan, Men with Guns, and some of Sayles' other films). I didn't get a chance to write a review. Obviously I wasn't strongly motivated. It is a 2007 release, NYC release Dec. 28. Not a huge crowd at the little auditorium of Cinema Village.

I'm glad another list is coming already on that thread for them.

oscar jubis
02-05-2008, 06:05 PM
Good stuff.
I felt the reassurance was needed because we're such a small site that if we (us 6? regulars) don't read each other's stuff (including what's posted in other sections), we might as well not invest the required time and effort.
If you know me, you know I feel bad about making and posting a list without having watched Southland Tales and Starting Out in the Evening. But one has to give 2007 closure, especially since my festival season is about to begin (Global Lens, Miami, then off to Sarasota, followed by niche festivals like the Brazilian and the G&L). Other than those two movies, I think I've seen just about every English-language movie that made it into any critic's list.

Chris Knipp
02-05-2008, 08:42 PM
That's more than enough. I'm sure you've seen a bunch I haven't. My memory of Starting Out... is much more vivid than of Southland Tales, but maybe that's just me. I have seen this time, never before, these new movies multiple times:

JUNO 2 times
THERE WILL BE BLOOD 2
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN 3
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY 2
THE SAVAGES 2
PERSEPOLIS 2
I'M NOT THERE 2
MICHAEL CLAYTON 2
INTO THE WILD 2

I haven't been in the habit of re-watching recent movies, but this way I did get to reconsider some of my high ratings. Needless to say there are some others I'd be glad to watch again.

I'd like to see the FINAL CUT Blade Runner, which is showing near where I live.

Don't forget more people do read these pages besides the small number of current contributors.

Right after Honeydripper I saw the documentary Billy the Kid. I hope you get to see that too.

The new French film series, Lincoln Center's RENDEZ-VOUS WITH FRENCH CINEMA, is coming up again soon in NY and I'm planning to be there. This will be my third time in a row for that. Thanks to Peter Wilson for getting me started on that! If I go to all the screenings, due to my sojourn in Paris last fall two will be repeats, Claude Miller's UN SECRET/A SECRET and Mia Hansen-Love's ALL IF FORGIVEN/TOUT EST PARDONNE'.

Schedule is posted in the festival section. (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2211)